Unsplash – Martin Miranda.jpg
[Hannah Bicknell | Features Editor]
Should women be charged more than men? Absolutely not.
It’s just adding salt to the wound after the revelation that female graduates are still being paid thousands of pounds less than men for the exact same job. It’s one thing for businesses at some point in their retail history to exploit their customers, however it’s another for them to consistently exploit based on gender. The concept where women pay more for products and services because they are women, is being dubbed the “pink tax”, and those who know about it are against it; as should be the rest of womankind.
A little research conducted by attn, who cover important topics through media, showed that 42 per cent of the time women pay more for the exact same products than men do. It’s unjustifiable to charge extra when the ingredients are exactly the same. Men and women are basically the same (minus the obvious differences) so why should the products be priced differently, to do the exact same job? Razors remove hair, whether they are blue or pink. For me, the most outrageous thing is being taxed on basic essentials such as tampons, when jaffa cakes and other luxury items are tax free. Not only does this highlight the lack of understanding male counterparts in business have about the basic biological happenings of a woman, but it limits the women even further. It’s not as though women have a choice or can control what happens to them every month. They might as well print a label on the packaging saying “it’s a luxury to clean up after yourself. Enjoy.” Big name retailers such as Boots, have been found to be a part of the numerous amount of businesses that charge women more than men. For instance, according to the Daily Mail one razor in a four pack of Gillette disposables for women cost 56p each, which is 13p more than a ten-pack of the male version. But the list goes on for the many products and services everyone uses but gets charged differently for, from clothing, hairdressing and toys all the way to MOTs. The message that it sends is so sexist, just because you’re a different gender you’re expected to pay a different price. I think if the shoe was on the other foot, it wouldn’t happen.